James v Eastleigh Borough Council

Parliamentary Archives,
HL/PO/JU/18/250

James (Appellant)

v.
Eastleigh Borough Council (Respondents)

JUDGMENT

Die Jovis 14° Junii 1990

Upon Report from the Appellate Committee to whom was
referred the Cause James against Eastleigh Borough Council,
That the Committee had heard Counsel on Wednesday the 28th and
Thursday the 29th days of March last, upon the Petition and
Appeal of Peter James, of 21 Grosvenor Road, Chandlers Ford,
Eastleigh, Hampshire, praying that the matter of the Order set
forth in the Schedule thereto, namely an Order of Her
Majesty's Court of Appeal of the 26th day of April 1989, might
be reviewed before Her Majesty the Queen in Her Court of
Parliament and that the said Order might be reversed, varied
or altered or that the Petitioner might have such other relief
in the premises as to Her Majesty the Queen in Her Court of
Parliament might seem meet; as upon the case of Eastleigh
Borough Council lodged in answer to the said Appeal; and due
consideration had this day of what was offered on either side
in this Cause:

It is Ordered and Adjudged, by the Lords Spiritual and
Temporal in the Court of Parliament of Her Majesty the Queen
assembled, That the said Order of Her Majesty's Court of
Appeal of the 26th day of April 1989 and the Order of His
Honour Judge Martin Tucker Q.C. of the 28th day of October
1987 complained of in the said Appeal be, and the same are
hereby, Set Aside and that it be declared "that the
respondents discriminated against the plaintiff on the ground
of his sex contrary to sections 1(1) (a) and 29 of the Sex
Discrimination Act 1975 by refusing to provide him with
swimming facilities on the same terms as were normal in the
case of women, in that men aged 60 to 65 (including the
plaintiff) were charged for entry, whereas women aged 60 to 65
were admitted free." And it is further Ordered, That there be
no Order as to costs. And it is also further Ordered, That
the Cause be, and the same is hereby, remitted back to the
Queen's Bench Division of the High Court of Justice to do
therein as shall be just and consistent with this Judgment.

Cler: Parliamentor

Judgment: 14.6.90

HOUSE OF LORDS

JAMES
(APPELLANT)

v.

EASTLEIGH BOROUGH COUNCIL
(RESPONDENTS)

Lord Bridge of Harwich
Lord Griffiths
Lord Ackner
Lord Goff of Chieveley
Lord Lowry

LORD BRIDGE OF HARWICH

My Lords,

In November 1985 the plaintiff and his wife were both aged
61. They went one day in that month to the Fleming Park
Leisure Centre where there is a public swimming pool operated by
the respondent council. Being of pensionable age the plaintiff's
wife was admitted free. Not being of pensionable age the
plaintiff had to pay 75p for admission. The plaintiff brought
proceedings against the council claiming that they had unlawfully
discriminated against him on the ground of his sex contrary to
section l(l)(a) and section 29 of the…